K.RAMASWAMY, B.L.HANSARIA
Mehngasingh, Sub Inspector – Appellant
Versus
Inspector General Of Police, Pap, Jalandhar Cantt – Respondent
ORDER
1. Notice was issued on 15-3-1991 confined to the question of punishment.
2. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel on both sides.
3. The appellant had unblemished record of service all through till 1989. Pursuant to the promotion given to him as Inspector, he was to deposit the service revolver and six live cartridges. It is his case that he had to share a room with two other colleagues as a consequence of which the revolver and six cartridges were lost and unaccounted for. Therefore, exclusive liability may not be appropriate.
4. There is an element of possibility in the contention. In view of the previous unblemished record of service and the plausible explanation offered by the appellant, we are of the opinion that the extreme punishment of dismissal from service may not be warranted. Accordingly, we direct the respondents to modify the punishment of dismissal as one of compulsory retirement so that the appellant would be entitled to retiral benefits.
5. The appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be a direction to the respondents to issue appropriate orders as directed above. Consequently, the appellant would be entitled to all the terminal benefits which must be computed an
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.